XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.christnet   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 19-September-2014 10:57 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
      
   > On 19-September-2014 7:21 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:07:45 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 17-September-2014 5:39 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I would think evidence would be one of their more serious points of   
   >>>> interest. Oh well, maybe mysticism and superstition have become all   
   >>>> the rage over there. The point stands though, that Bob keeps resetting   
   >>>> followups to avoid the group with a definite interest in evidence   
   >>>> (actual *objective* evidence, not just "I want to believe"), and Felix   
   >>>> keeps adding it back. Felix, if you'd just leave the group list   
   >>>> correctly set, then you'd get the last word in those "I like fairy   
   >>>> stories and have no clue what science is" groups. Isn't that all for   
   >>>> the best?   
   >>> well you have it all wrong. *I* 'leave the group list correctly set' as   
   >>> it always has been. the thread is crossposted. It has been running in   
   >>> alt.agnosticism AND alt.atheism, alt.christnet,   
   >>> talk.philosophy.humanism, and ski.skeptic since 20th August, and Bob   
   >>> Wankanover has been happily posting and discussing in it with the   
   >>> headers unchanged, with no cause for concern apparently, UNTIL I posted   
   >>> a comment on the 14th. September, at which point it suddenly became   
   >>> important to him that my comments do not appear in sci.skeptic, and he   
   >>> demanded that I remove 'his' ng from my replies.   
   >>      What was it that disturbed his overly challenged little mind so   
   >> much, do you   
   >> know?   
   >   
   > the fact that I said something that was true.. :)   
   >   
   >   
      
   sorry, I guess I should have answered the question. here's the exchange   
   that caused him to get his knickers in a knot..   
      
   On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:18:11 +1000, the following appeared   
   in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
      
    > On 14-September-2014 4:06 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
    >   
    >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:13:48 -0400, the following appeared   
    >> in sci.skeptic, posted by mur@.not.:   
    >>   
    >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:38:03 -0700, Bob Casanova continued   
   ask for   
    >>>>>>>>> objective evidence:   
    >   
    > well duh! it aint called 'religious faith' for no reason. you either   
    > accept what evidence there is eg. the biblical record, testimony, etc.,   
    > or you don't   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg   
   “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough   
   men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)